Establishment Republicans: Are Fish Aware of the Water They Swim In?

Troy Senik of the Center for Individual Freedom (CFIF) has written a fine piece on the growing “fissure” within the Republican Party that has lain largely dormant for years — namely the “divide” that separates Conservatives and Establishment Republicans.

Conservatives, represented mostly by those in the Tea Party Movement, are largely responsible for the Republican Party re-capture of the House of Representatives in 2010. The Establishment folks sort of know that and sometimes mutter a few grudging words of acknowledgment, but they are loathe to raise the subject or deal with it in any serious way. Nor do the Establishment types see themselves as any kind of “faction” within the party. To them, they are the party.

Take for example the nominally conservative Jeb Bush, who seems to scoff at the notion of a party “establishment”. Says Jeb:

I don’t know what the Republican establishment is. I haven’t learned the secret handshake, and I don’t know where to go for a membership card.

Should we be surprised at Jeb Bush for his seeming blind spot? After all, are fish aware of the water they swim in?

Senik defines the Establishment types as:

… long-time denizens of Washington or other loci of power. They are institutionalized elected officials, money men, party leaders, or grandees of business, consultancies or advocacy groups. And they are often made suspect by the duration of their power, a trait that gives pause to Conservatives who believe that a dedication to limited government entails a devotion to not assimilating to the ways of the Beltway.

These include, of course, the very same Republicans who were present when the House and Senate voted for entitlement programs that any competent accountant could have shown to be impossible to pay for — ever. With their “old friends across the aisle” (a favorite John McCain phrase), they have effectively signed our children and grandchildren into debt bondage. Did they try to warn us? Did they try to stop the growth of these programs? Shame on them. Recently, they had a chance to make at least a show of repentance by voting for term limits. Alas, even that token gesture was too much for Senators like McCain and Jon Kyl. They voted against term limits. Double shame on them.

Senik concludes with the following observations and a call to Conservatives to prepare for a long-term struggle with the Establishment as well as the Democrats.

The establishment had its turn at the wheel over the last decade and the conservative movement reaped a whirlwind as a result. Federal spending and deficits increased; regulation proliferated; entitlements expanded; embarrassing pork projects passed through Congress as part of a gentleman’s agreement in which both parties agreed to gorge their special interest benefactors; bailouts were given to the financial and automotive industries, and, in the end, the Republican Party was rebuked at the ballot box.

Conservatives should not delude themselves into thinking this is a passing trend. Over the past century, only three men – Calvin Coolidge, Barry Goldwater, and Ronald Reagan – were able to beat back establishment pretensions and earn the party’s presidential nomination. As of this writing, it looks unlikely that a similarly situated candidate will earn the nomination in 2012.

Many Tea Partiers and their sympathists will undoubtedly interpret this as a source of grief. But their demoralization is premature. A short-term focus on beating the establishment has not yielded fruit. That calls not for sorrow, but for a long-term focus on replacing it outright.

Comments

I dont buy the premise that conservatives are mostly represented by the Tea Party. Some of the Tea party folks are conservative, but there are lots of others that are taking sandwiches to the occupy parties in the park. Of course that would go against the populist theory of some conspiracy that is keeping us “real” conservatives down. There must be a conspiracy, or we would be in charge right?

I agree with Fred. I am a conservative and refuse to allow Tea Party people to make the claim they somehow represent me. Tea Party is a trendy, populist political phenomenon (I can’t really call it a movement, is has no leadership and is more anarchy than party).

In many ways “establishment” is much like “conservative” though we’re going to have to demand people define their terms. I’d like them to start with “party.”

And just who is THE “conservative,” non-establishment candidate running for the Republican Party nomination? Newt Gingrinch? Please. He was the Speaker of the House–how more “establishment” can you get? He’s spent the past 30 years in DC circles. Ron Paul? Another “please.” He’s been in Congress for 22 years and has run for President three times–once as a Libertarian. Rick Santorum? Probably the most conservative of the group, but hardly an outsider. He was a U.S. Senator for 12 years and has stayed in and around DC for almost 20 years. Mitt Romney? Not the most conservative, but the least “establishment.” A one-term governor with the rest of his time in private business. Any one of them would be better than what we have in the White House now. But Republicans need to stop eating each other. Competition–yes; destroying each other–no. I will happily support whichever of these four win the nomination.

Interesting that the author specifically mentions Jeb Bush, since he and his brother and father are poster-boys of the big-government globalist Republican establishment.

AND (this is a HUGE AND) don’t forget that Jeb was governor of Florida and his big brother George was President of the whole country, and BOTH were hiding under their respective royal beds, with the lights out and the phones disconnected, while Terry Schiavo was being tortured and murdered in Florida—in the name of euthanasia. What legacies they both have left for US.

As for this field of candidates, there is only one conservative, Rick Santorum. It is sadly comical how “moderates” all struggle to portray the others as “conservative in this area, conservative in that area, but having overcome all of his moderate history.” Romney equals obama, Gingrich equals Clinton on steroids. I guess the “moderates” will really have to struggle with this decision.

Support Rick Santorum, a conservative American patriot, for President.

Yea, how horrible that the government stayed out of the husband’s decision about how to effectuate the wishes of his beloved wife,

True conservatives, like LEO, think the government should make those decisions for you … right?

OF course not. Conservatives favor letting the family, in this case the husband, make medical decisions.

Bottom line: the doctors got it right, and the all the politicians got was press coverage.

“An autopsy on Terri Schiavo backed her husband’s contention that she was in a persistent vegetative state, finding that she had massive and irreversible brain damage and was blind, the medical examiner’s office said Wednesday. It also found no evidence that she was strangled or otherwise abused. “

NOTICE: The above poster, “TruConserv”, is a paid propagandist for the liberal left posing as a “Conservative” for the express purpose of discrediting Conservatives. For example, TC wrote this:

“True Conservative says:
February 2, 2012 at 9:34 pm”

“I understand why Obama came after SB1070. Morons like you acted went about demonizing hispanics, particularly Mexicans, and that caused the left to react in such a way that Obama was forced to respond.”

“If conservatives in Arizona had calmly, rationally passed a fact-based law reasonably designed to address the genuine concerns associated with illegal immigration we could have avoided much of this nonsense.”

So the whole problem with Obama and SB1070 was caused by those terrible “conservatives in Arizona”! Who would have thunk it, LOL!

I’m talking about people like you, members of the lunatic fringe, who think the government knows better than the family. Your ilk thinks a judge knows more than a doctor and they both know more than the husband about what a beloved wife wanted for her life.

“If Obama does something good, let’s encourage him to do more. For example, he is now deporting illegal aliens at a rate higher than any previous president.”

In the best classic tradition of liberal half truths, outright lies and misrepresentations, while cheering Obama on, you failed to mention this:

“The president is suggesting that deportations are up. Not so fast.”

“The number of deportations in 2009 and 2010 is higher under the Obama administration than at any other time, but it’s not because of increased enforcement. The higher numbers reflect many removal cases that were already in the pipeline, leftovers from Bush-era enforcement.”

BTW: do you still think Reagan is “just another dead guy” who was not a conservative and whose words mean nothing to the conservative movement?

As for the OPINION piece you reference, I encourage everyone to take a look at it, it reinforced my point: when you are always negative about the opposition, then you are never credible as a critic of the opposition.

The opinion piece has no facts, and as a matter of law is flawed in its understanding of how deportations work – but that’s not important.

What is important is this: no one else is running this guy’s opinion. It’s getting no traction outside the Fox Network. That is because the author is a guy who exclusively complains about Obama.

He’s no longer credible.

Neither are you … you’re just a cyberstalking, ever-giving, unwitting stalking horse for me to whip.

ROFL! In typical liberal fashion, TC wants to avoid facts and take readers down the intellectual rabbit hole, through labyrinthine corridors of obfuscation. Let’s get back to the FACTS, shall we?

TC bills herself as a “True Conservative” but she has this to say about Obama, SB1070 and “conservatives in Arizona”:

“True Conservative says:
February 2, 2012 at 9:34 pm”

“I understand why Obama came after SB1070. Morons like you acted went about demonizing hispanics, particularly Mexicans, and that caused the left to react in such a way that Obama was forced to respond.”

“If conservatives in Arizona had calmly, rationally passed a fact-based law reasonably designed to address the genuine concerns associated with illegal immigration we could have avoided much of this nonsense.”

So TC “understands” Obama, claims that he was “forced” to go after SB1070 and blames “conservatives in Arizona” for “much of this nonsense.”

Ah yes, those terrible “conservatives in Arizona”. It’s their fault. Obama never, in a million years, would have gone after SB1070 if it were not for those awful “conservatives in Arizona” forcing him to do it, LOL!

“Conservatives in Arizona” are responsible for the Legal Arizona Workers Act, which B. Hussein Obama claimed was unconstitutional. The U. S. District Court, the 9th U. S. Circuit Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court of The United States all found it’s provisions to be constitutional.

So it is FACT that “much of this nonsense” is caused by TC’s beloved B. Hussein Obama and not by those “conservatives in Arizona”.

Notice something, SA readers. There’s not a single objective fact cited in TC’s above comment. That is entirely consistent with the classic lberal approach of attempting to take readers down the intellectual rabbit hole, through labyrinthine corridors of obfuscation. Liberals abhor facts and truth.

So let us once again respond to TC’s liberal leftist propaganda with FACT! It is FACT that TC wrote this:

“True Conservative says:
February 2, 2012 at 9:34 pm”

“I understand why Obama came after SB1070. Morons like you acted went about demonizing hispanics, particularly Mexicans, and that caused the left to react in such a way that Obama was forced to respond.”

“If conservatives in Arizona had calmly, rationally passed a fact-based law reasonably designed to address the genuine concerns associated with illegal immigration we could have avoided much of this nonsense.”

I have presented no convoluted intellecutal razmataz in the lberal TC fashion. What is “razmataz”? “Noun 1. razmataz – any exciting and complex play intended to confuse (dazzle) the opponent…” I have presented objective FACT instead.

According to TC, “conservatives in Arizona” are responsible for “forcing” poor old Obama, against his will, to go after SB1070. Not only that, it was “conservatives in Arizona” who caused “much of this nonsense” and NOT Obama. Wow! You are some “conservative”, TC, LOL!

All we get from you is radical, left wing, liberal, progrssive drivel!

You know facts, right? Like the fact that you wrote this:

“True Conservative says:
February 2, 2012 at 9:34 pm”

“I understand why Obama came after SB1070. Morons like you acted went about demonizing hispanics, particularly Mexicans, and that caused the left to react in such a way that Obama was forced to respond.”

“If conservatives in Arizona had calmly, rationally passed a fact-based law reasonably designed to address the genuine concerns associated with illegal immigration we could have avoided much of this nonsense.”

TC wrote: “Your cowardice is showing each and every time you cowar from directly responding to my posts.”

Really? Is that so, Miss Coward? Well try this on for size, Sweetheart. You said this about me:

“Morons like you acted went about demonizing hispanics, particularly Mexicans…”

I have challenged you repeatedly to prove your allegation but you have cowered from directly responding to my challenge, offering not a single shred of evidence to back up your aspersion.

Now I challenge you again, Miss Coward. Prove that I have “deomonized” Hispanics, particularly Mexicans.

You can’t prove it because, yet once again, showing yourself to be a “True Liberal”, you are merely engaging in classic liberal smear tactics. Your liberal motto is if you can’t win on the facts, smear your opponent.

So now, TC, are you going to, yet once again, cower from my challenge like the liberal coward you are?

Is that so! Well thanks for proving my point, TC, because you wrote this:

“True Conservative says:
February 2, 2012 at 9:34 pm”

“I understand why Obama came after SB1070. Morons like you acted went about demonizing hispanics, particularly Mexicans, and that caused the left to react in such a way that Obama was forced to respond.”

“If conservatives in Arizona had calmly, rationally passed a fact-based law reasonably designed to address the genuine concerns associated with illegal immigration we could have avoided much of this nonsense.”

So you “understand” Obama, and that the reason he was “forced” to go after SB1070, against his will, was because of those darn “conservatives in Arizona”! You claim to be one of those “conservatives in Arziona” yet you say that they are responsible for “nonsense”, LOL!

You’re a radical, left wing liberal supporter of B. Hussein Obama who “understands” him but finds “conservatives in Arizona” responsible for nonsense!

Her family did want to save & care for her—that’s why they were suing the “husband.” She was alert, recognizing and responding to her family members and nursing staff, and that’s why the “husband’s” judge forbade the family from videotaping her. Her negative responses to the presence of the “husband” were one reason he was forbidden from being alone with her in her first nursing home. That’s why he had his judge order her moved to the OTHER facility.

As to the “husband” ”effectuating the wishes of his beloved wife,” the “husband” was already living with another woman and had already fathered children with her while he was trying to kill Terry.

The government should have stayed out of this matter and let the family decide—and Terry would be alive today. It was a government judge who ordered her tortured and murdered. The government’s responsibility was to SAVE HER LIFE (recommended reading: Declaration of Independence, U. S. Constitution) and let her family care for her.

& evidence of strangulation at autopsy, an autopsy that occurred more than a year after Terry was attacked—yup, that is as significant as the rest of the rationalization that the pro-euthanasia crowd will always use. Methinks that their elderly or sick relatives should start feeling concerned for their own futures.

This was the Establishment Government at work, and it causes me grave concern for the future of all of US.

The husband is the family. If you value the sanctity of marriage then you recognize the husband is closest person of all to the wife.

The autopsy proved she was blind and was in a vegetative state. All your ‘claims’ are the stuff of fiction, directly contradicted by medical science.

‘The family,’ as you call them, got the courts involved. They sued to deny the husband the right to do as his wife requested. They tried to get government to substitute its judgement for that of the husband. That is not how a conservative behaves.

You’re a hypocrite. You claim you want less government intrusion … until you want more. You claim you want to protect the sanctity of marriage … until you don’t.

Worst of all, you’re one of those wingnuts who refuses to acknowledge the validity of science. The autopsy proved your side got it wrong. She was blind. She was vegetative. But heck, don’t let the facts get in the way of your predetermined opinion.

Those are the facts.

I’m not a big fan of pulling the plug, but when a woman has told her husband that she would not want to live in a vegetative state, then I think we should all respect the sanctity of that marriage and keep the courts out of it.

First, let’s look at Table 33 on page 91 which shows “Deportable Aliens Located” which is defined in the text as “Border Patrol apprehensions and ICE administrative arrests”. You will notice that the highest number of illegal aliens arrested for deportation was in the year 2000 with a total of 1,814,729. When Obama came to office in 2009, that number dropped to 613,003.

Table 36 on page 95 shows that the total number of illegal aliens removed or returned under the Obama administration in 2009 was the LOWEST since 1997.

So TC, like all good Obama liberals, will lie, distort and misrepresent in her function as a paid propagandist for the Obama “progressive” radical liberal left.

(1) You actually give the citation to the evidence that proves you wrong.
(2) You don’t understand the differance between remove and return. Obama has increased the number of removals – which is something we should encourage.
(3) If you were correct, I’d be happy. I’m not here to apologize for Obama. I was just using one example of something, if true, that conservatives should support.

It was an illustrative point to support the premise that you also disagree with – that we should praise Obama when he does good, so we can be more credible when we attack him for doing bad.

You’re a reactionary, your position is based on the position of your “enemy,” not on any principled school of thought.

First, let’s look at Table 33 on page 91 which shows “Deportable Aliens Located” which is defined in the text as “Border Patrol apprehensions and ICE administrative arrests”. You will notice that the highest number of illegal aliens arrested for deportation was in the year 2000 with a total of 1,814,729. When Obama came to office in 2009, that number dropped to 613,003. The objective, irrefutable statistics directly from the Department of Homeland Security prove your statement wrong. Under Obama, Border Patrol apprehensions and ICE adminsitrative arrests which lead to deportations are down.

No, it is YOU who doesn’t understand “removals” and “returns”. Let’s look at the official definitions.

“Removals are the compulsory and confirmed movement of an inadmissible or deportable alien out of the United States based on an order of removal. An alien who is removed has administrative or criminal consequences placed on subsequent reentry owing to the fact of the removal.”

“Returns are the confirmed movement of an inadmissible or deportable alien out of the United States not based on an order of removal. Most of the voluntary returns are of Mexican nationals who have been apprehended by the U. S. Border paterol and are returned to Mexico.”

So let’s look at Obama’s peformance, shall we?

In 2000 there were 188,467 removals and 1,675,876 returns for a total of 1,846,343 illegal aliens gone from the U. S. due to removals and returns. In 2009, on Obama’s watch, there were 393,289 removals and 580,107 returns for a total of 973,396 illegal aliens gone from the U. S. due to removals and returns. So there were 872,947 more illegal aliens gone from the U. S. in 2000 from removals and returns than there were on Obama’s watch in 2009.

So your carefully chosen phrase, “Obama has increased the number of removals…”, is a meaningless bunch of liberal bull and a classic liberal attempt at half truth, lies, distortions and misrepresentations. It isn’t merely a question of “removals” it is a question of the total of “removals” AND “returns” which provides that actual number of illegal aliens gone from the U. S..

So your classic liberal lies, distortions, half truths and misrepresentations fail again and you stand revealed as the “True Liberal” that you are.

Sorry you still don’t understand returns versus removals and how they relate to the current administration. It an issue of you don’t know what you don’t know, I suppose. To the learned, you sound like a fool. To a fool, you sound learned.

I am sure you think you sound learned.

But, you continue to dodge my question to you: what part of stating conservative should support Obama when he gets it right, so to be more credible when offer criticism?

In classic liberal fashion, you’re not content to simply put your liberal foot in your liberal mouth. You have to double down and insert your liberal foot even further into your liberal mouth, LOL!

Let’s restate the definitions of removals and returns for the learning impaired like TC, shall we?

“Removals are the compulsory and confirmed movement of an inadmissible or deportable alien out of the United States based on an order of removal. An alien who is removed has administrative or criminal consequences placed on subsequent reentry owing to the fact of the removal.”

“Returns are the confirmed movement of an inadmissible or deportable alien out of the United States not based on an order of removal. Most of the voluntary returns are of Mexican nationals who have been apprehended by the U. S. Border Patrol and are returned to Mexico.”

Now let’s look at Obama’s performance in 2010 as compared with his performance in 2009. For this we turn to the Department of Homeland Security 2010 Yearbook of Immigration Statics. Here’s the link:

Table 36 on page 94 shows that there were 7,923 fewer “removals” in 2010 than in 2009. There were 109,759 fewer “returns” in 2010 than in 2009. The total of “removals” plus “returns” in 2010 were1,864,343 less than they were in 2000.

Perhaps more important than these irrefutable statistics directly from the Department of Homeland Security is TC’s response to them.

TC goes by the user name of “True Conservative”, yet look at the manner in which this alleged “Conservative” seeks to defend B. Hussein Obama, even in the face of irrefutable statistics directly from Obama’s Department of Homeland Security under the leadership of Obama-appointed Janet Napolitano!

Readers will also notice that TC has offered no FACTS in rebuttal. She hasn’t cited a single source of FACTUAL data. What we get instead is entirely unfounded liberal leftist propaganda verbiage.

So TC has yet once again proven that she is no “Conservative” but rather a paid propagandist for the liberal left posing as a Conservative for the express purpose of seeking to discredit real Conservatives.

Yet once again, TC, you stand revealed as a “True Obama Liberal”, defending Obama at every turn.

TC wrote: “Deportations are the compulsory, not the voluntary, removal of an illegal alien. Your confusion about his point has been hilarious.”

ROFL! Your attempted deception is what is hilarious, TC!

TC wrote this:

“TruConserv says:
February 4, 2012 at 9:50 am”

“If Obama does something good, let’s encourage him to do more. For example, he is now deporting illegal aliens at a rate higher than any previous president.”

So when you wrote that, TC, you wanted SA readers to understand that you were referring EXCLUSIVELY to compulsory removals ONLY and NOT the total number of illegal aliens gotten out of the country under the Obama administration. Is that right, TC?

Now why in the world would TC want to do that? To find out, let’s go back to the statistics in the Department of Homeland Security 2010 Yearbook of Immigration Statistics which can be found at the following link:

In the year 2000 there were 188,467 “removals”. In 2010, under Obama, there were 387,242 “removals”. However, when we look at the next row of statistics we find that in 2000 there were 1,675,876 “returns” and in 2010, under Obama, the number of “returns” had dropped to 476,405!

So in 2010 under the Obama adminstration, “removals” increased by 198,775 over year 2000 “removals”. At the same time, “returns” DECREASED by 1,199,471. In case you haven’t gotten it, TC, the number of illegal aliens gotten out of the country by Obama in 2010 is LESS than the number gotten out of the country in the year 2000 by more than a million!

By using the term “deporting” in the sense of a strict legal definition, TC was able to make Obama look good. As a liberal Obama supporter, that is her intention. If we look at the reality on the ground, however, a million fewer illegal aliens were gotten out of the country in 2010 under the Obama adminstration than were gotten out of the country in the year 2000.

So what have we learned? We have learned, yet once again, that liberal Obama supporters like TC will engage in half truths, lies, distortions and misrepresentations to make their hero, B. Hussein Obama, look better. Ain’t that something!

According to the legal definition of “deportation”, Obama is “deporting” more illegal aliens than any previous president. However, compared with the total number of illegal aliens being gotten out of the U. S. through both “removals”, deportation, AND “returns”, voluntarily leaving the U. S., the number of illegal aliens being gotten out of the U. S. by the Obama administration in 2010 is more than one million fewer than were gotten out of the U. S. in the year 2000.

So TC is merely presenting liberal propaganda. Is it fact-based to say that TC is presenting propaganda? Let’s find out!

Here is a definition of propaganda:

“Propaganda is a form of communication that is aimed at influencing the attitude of a community toward some cause or position.”

“As opposed to impartially providing information, propaganda, in its most basic sense, presents information primarily to influence an audience. Propaganda often presents facts selectively (thus possibly lying by omission) to encourage a particular synthesis, or uses loaded messages to produce an emotional rather than rational response to the information presented. The desired result is a change of the attitude toward the subject in the target audience to further a political agenda. Propaganda can be used as a form of political warfare.”

“A half-truth is a deceptive statement, which may come in several forms and includes some element of truth. The statement might be partly true, the statement may be totally true but only part of the whole truth, or it may utilize some deceptive element, such as improper punctuation, or double meaning, especially if the intent is to deceive, evade, blame or misrepresent the truth.”

So what TC presented fits the definition of “Half-truth” propaganda in that, “The statement might be partly true, the statement may be totally true but only part of the whole truth…”

The whole truth has to do with the relative performance of the Obama administration in getting illegal aliens out of the U. S.. Addressing legally defined “deportation” only is addressing only part of the whole truth.

Why did you choose to present information regarding only illegal aliens being gotten out of the U. S. by the Obama administration under the legal definition of “deportation” instead of addressing the total number of illegal aliens being gotten out of the country by the Obama administration?

The answer to that question is simple! TC was engaging in blatant propaganda to prop up his hero, B. Hussein Obama!

Why did you choose to present information regarding only illegal aliens being gotten out of the U. S. by the Obama administration under the legal definition of “deportation” instead of addressing the total number of illegal aliens being gotten out of the country by the Obama administration?

I didn’t hear an answer to the question! All I heard was more radical, left wing, liberal, progressive drivel, LOL!

Leo makes some good points. I will vote for Santorum because of his solid positioning as a conservative. The rest all have various problems and Romney will not be our best shot at defeating Obama.
Romneys biggest theme seems to be “we need jobs, and I was successful in business, so i am the best choice”. What happens when there is any growth over the next few months? The strategery geniuses in the RNC are banking on the fact that the economy sucks. What happens when there are new jobs and an appearance of economic recovery? Remember folks, the economy is mostly a cycle, it has very little to do with what the prez does or doesnt do. If you make Romneys theme the anchor for your campaign, then when the media starts painting the picture of recovery, and they will, then your anchor falls off the boat and sinks you to the bottom.
Santorums conservative agenda is far more survivable and more formidable against Obama.

About Sonoran Alliance

Arizona's most popular and prominent political blog covering political news and events, commentary and information with a blatantly conservative worldview. We are an alliance of writers, activists, consultants and government insiders.